Closure Stage Quality Assurance Report
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Closure Stage Quality Assurance Report
Form Status: Approved
Overall Rating: Satisfactory
Decision:
Portfolio/Project Number: 00084577
Portfolio/Project Title: Acuerdos de Segunda Generación Fase II
Portfolio/Project Date: 2015-05-01 / 2021-06-30
1 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 2 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Evidence:
A lo largo de la implementación del proyecto, la coo
rdinación del proyecto junto con su equipo identificó
realizó escenarios prospectivos para anticipar posib
les cambios en el escenarios político, que pudiesen
afectar la implmentación del proyecto. Una de las m
edidas que se tomó para este fin fue la creación de
un espacio denominado "comité de conducción estr
atégica", en la que se realizaba una evaluación de l
os escenarios y temas políticos con los ministros d
e las carteras involucradas en los espacios de diálo
go.
Asimismo, se crearon espacios de discusión ad ho
c, con contrapartes gubernamentales, y miembros
de la sociedad civil, para sobrellevar desafíos coyu
nturales, así como para fortalecer la estrategia de
diálogo impulsada por el proyecto.
En ese sentido, cabe destacar las mesas creadas
en el seno del CONED, así como en el marco del C
NSCC y la estrategia que desde los espacios de di
álogo se diseñó para prepararse ante un posible ca
mbio de gobierno en el mayo de 2019.
Referencias a estas afirmaciones pueden ser consu
ltadas tanto en el informe de evaluación de la contri
bución del PNUD en procesos de diálogo, así como
en el documento que resume las lecciones aprendid
as en la implementación del proyecto (Ver anexo).
3 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 4 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 5 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
4. Did the project generate knowledge, and lessons learned (i.e., what has worked and what has not) and has this
knowledge informed management decisions to ensure the continued relevance of the project towards its stated
objectives, the quality of its outputs and the management of risk?
3: Knowledge and lessons learned from internal or external sources (gained, for example, from Peer Assists,
After Action Reviews or Lessons Learned Workshops) backed by credible evidence from evaluation,
corporate policies/strategies, analysis and monitoring were discussed in project board meetings and reflected
in the minutes. There is clear evidence that changes were made to the project to ensure its continued
relevance. (both must be true)
2: Knowledge and lessons learned backed by relatively limited evidence, drawn mainly from within the
project, were considered by the project team. There is some evidence that changes were made to the
project as a result to ensure its continued relevance. (both must be true)
1: There is limited or no evidence that knowledge and lessons learned were collected by the project team.
There is little or no evidence that this informed project decision making.
6 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Evidence:
El proyecto elaboró un documento sintesis de la ex
periencia de diálogo en el marco de los 3 consejos
temáticos, como una acción que formaba parte de l
a estrategia de transición en el contexto de cambio
de goebierno. en este documento se hace un recue
nto de las principales lecciones aprendidas y el con
ocimiento generado en el ámbito de la promoción d
el diálogo y la participación ciudadana para el diseñ
o y retroalimentación de políticas públicas. (Ver ane
xo)
Por otro lado, el proyecto se evaluó entre abril y se
ptiembre de 2019, por una consultora independient
e de conformidad a los lineamientos corporativas d
e evaluación. Al finalizar el proceso se elaboró un in
forme que recoge las principales lecciones aprendid
as y buenas prácticas, así como las áres de mejora
a tomar en cuenta para una nueva intervención. (ver
anexo).
5. Was the project sufficiently at scale, or is there potential to scale up in the future, to meaningfully contribute to
development change?
7 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
3: There was credible evidence that the project reached sufficient number of beneficiaries (either directly
through significant coverage of target groups, or indirectly, through policy change) to meaningfully contribute
to development change.
2: While the project was not considered at scale, there are explicit plans in place to scale up the project in the
future (e.g. by extending its coverage or using project results to advocate for policy change).
1: The project was not at scale, and there are no plans to scale up the project in the future.
Evidence:
El proyecto se diseñó para tener impacto a nivel na
cional , dado que su principal objetivo era contribuir
a la generación de acuerdos en los principales desa
fios del pais seguridad, educación y sustentabilidad
ambiental.
Para ello, el proyecto procuró desde su inicio la cre
ación de mecanismos que garantizaran el alcance d
e los resultados a nivel nacional, así como la sosten
ibilidad del proceso de diálogo y participación ciuda
dana. Entre las medidas que se promovieron desta
ca la creación por decreto ejecutivo de los 3 consej
os temáticos de diálogo (CNSCC, CONED y CONA
SAV), así como la ceación de las hojas de ruta de
apoyo a la implementación de políticas públicas en
materia de seguridad, educación y sustentabilidad a
mbiental, de caracter gradual y de largo plazo (PES
S, PESE, PESUT). (ver anexos)
8 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 9 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
3: The project team gathered data and evidence through project monitoring on the relevance of the measures
to address gender inequalities and empower women. Analysis of data and evidence were used to inform
adjustments and changes, as appropriate. (both must be true)
2: The project team had some data and evidence on the relevance of the measures to address gender
inequalities and empower women. There is evidence that at least some adjustments were made, as
appropriate. (both must be true)
1: The project team had limited or no evidence on the relevance of measures to address gender inequalities
and empowering women. No evidence of adjustments and/or changes made. This option should also be
selected if the project has no measures to address gender inequalities and empower women relevant to the
project results and activities.
Evidence:
En el transcurso de la implementación del proyecto,
la coordinación y su equipo fueron tomando medid
as específicas para garantizar de manera efectiva l
a trasnversalización del enfoque de género. Entre la
s medidas que se adoptaron pueden mencionarse l
a inclusión del ISDEMU como participante activo de
los 3 espacios de diálogo, así como la incorporació
n en el plan de trabajo 2019 del CNSCC de accion
es específicas para abordar los temas de género
(ver anexos).
7. Were social and environmental impacts and risks successfully managed and monitored?
10 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
3: Social and environmental risks were tracked in the risk log. Appropriate assessments conducted where
required (i.e., Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for High risk projects and some level of
social and environmental assessment for Moderate risk projects as identified through SESP). Relevant
management plan(s) developed for identified risks through consultative process and implemented, resourced,
and monitored. Risks effectively managed or mitigated. If there is a substantive change to the project or
change in context that affects risk levels, the SESP was updated to reflect these changes. (all must be true)
2: Social and environmental risks were tracked in the risk log. Appropriate assessments conducted where
required (i.e., Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for High risk projects and some level of
social and environmental assessment for Moderate risk projects as identified through SESP). Relevant
management plan(s) developed, implemented and monitored for identified risks. OR project was
categorized as Low risk through the SESP.
1: Social and environmental risks were tracked in the risk log. For projects categorized as High or Moderate
Risk, there was no evidence that social and environmental assessments completed and/or management plans
or measures development, implemented or monitored. There are substantive changes to the project or
changes in the context but SESP was not updated. (any may be true)
Evidence:
Los impactos y riesgos ambientales y sociales fuer
on debidamente monitoreados por el/la Cooridnado
ra del Proyecto y Gerencia del PNUD.
8. Were grievance mechanisms available to project-affected people and were grievances (if any) addressed to
ensure any perceived harm was effectively mitigated?
3: Project-affected people actively informed of UNDP’s Corporate Accountability Mechanism (SRM/SECU)
and how to access it. If the project was categorized as High or Moderate Risk through the SESP, a project
-level grievance mechanism was in place and project affected people informed. If grievances were received,
they were effectively addressed in accordance with SRM Guidance. (all must be true)
2: Project-affected people informed of UNDP’s Corporate Accountability Mechanism and how to access it. If
the project was categorized as High Risk through the SESP, a project -level grievance mechanism was in
place and project affected people informed. If grievances were received, they were responded to but faced
challenges in arriving at a resolution.
1: Project-affected people was not informed of UNDP’s Corporate Accountability Mechanism. If grievances
were received, they were not responded to. (any may be true)
11 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 12 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Evidence:
En el documento de proyecto se estableció el plan
de monitoreo y evaluación, al cual se le dio seguimi
ento de forma periodica y de acuerdo a las política
s corporativas del PNUD.
10. Was the project’s governance mechanism (i.e., the project board or equivalent) function as intended?
3: The project’s governance mechanism operated well, and was a model for other projects. It met in the
agreed frequency stated in the project document and the minutes of the meetings were all on file. There was
regular (at least annual) progress reporting to the project board or equivalent on results, risks and
opportunities. It is clear that the project board explicitly reviewed and used evidence, including progress
data, knowledge, lessons and evaluations, as the basis for informing management decisions (e.g., change
in strategy, approach, work plan.) (all must be true to select this option)
2: The project’s governance mechanism met in the agreed frequency and minutes of the meeting are on file. A
project progress report was submitted to the project board or equivalent at least once per year, covering
results, risks and opportunities. (both must be true to select this option)
1: The project’s governance mechanism did not meet in the frequency stated in the project document over the
past year and/or the project board or equivalent was not functioning as a decision-making body for the project
as intended.
13 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Evidence:
Al inicio del proyecto y tal como se refleja en el doc
umento de proyecto se estableció la Junta Ejecutiva
de Proyecto, responsable de las decisiones estrate
gicas del mismo. Dicho espacio funcionó de manera
regular, sosteniendo reuniones al menos una vez al
año.
Asimismo, para facilitar la implementación y seguimi
ento del proyecto se generó un protocolo de coordi
nación y facilitación de los consejos nacionales de d
iálogo entre el PNUD y la Secretaria de Gobernabili
dad (SEGOB), cuyo objetivo era promover una ade
cuada coordinación entre la SEGOB y la Secretaría
Técnica de los Consejos, mejorar la planificación, el
seguimiento y la distribución de las responsabilidad
es entre la SEGOB y el PNUD, entre otros. (ver an
exo)
11. Were risks to the project adequately monitored and managed?
3: The project monitored risks every quarter and consulted with the key stakeholders, security advisors, to
identify continuing and emerging risks to assess if the main assumptions remained valid. There is clear
evidence that relevant management plans and mitigating measures were fully implemented to address each
key project risk and were updated to reflect the latest risk assessment. (all must be true)
2: The project monitored risks every year, as evidenced by an updated risk log. Some updates were made to
management plans and mitigation measures.
1: The risk log was not updated as required. There was may be some evidence that the project monitored
risks that may affected the project’s achievement of results, but there is no explicit evidence that management
actions were taken to mitigate risks.
14 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 15 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
13. Were project inputs procured and delivered on time to efficiently contribute to results?
3: The project had a procurement plan and kept it updated. The project quarterly reviewed operational
bottlenecks to procuring inputs in a timely manner and addressed them through appropriate management
actions. (all must be true)
2: The project had updated procurement plan. The project annually reviewed operational bottlenecks to
procuring inputs in a timely manner and addressed them through appropriate management actions. (all must
be true)
1: The project did not have an updated procurement plan. The project team may or may not have reviewed
operational bottlenecks to procuring inputs regularly, however management actions were not taken to address
them.
Evidence:
El plan de aquisicion y contratación fue la guia para
procurar todos los insumos requeridos para la imple
mentación efectiva del proyecto. No obstante, la fal
ta de cumplimiento del calendario de pagos por par
te del gobierno, dificultó la conformación del equipo
de coordinación del proyecto, el cual nunca fue conf
romado en su totalidad.
14. Was there regular monitoring and recording of cost efficiencies, taking into account the expected quality of
results?
16 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 17 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Evidence:
A la finalización del proyecto, se cumplieron con las
metas asignadas y se alcanzaron los resultados es
perados, de acuerdo con lo establecido en el PRO
DOC. La evaluación del proyecto, así como la siste
matización de las buenas prácticas, dan cuenta de
esta afirmación.
16. Were there regular reviews of the work plan to ensure that the project was on track to achieve the desired
results, and to inform course corrections if needed?
3: Quarterly progress data informed regular reviews of the project work plan to ensure that the activities
implemented were most likely to achieve the desired results. There is evidence that data and lessons learned
(including from evaluations /or After-Action Reviews) were used to inform course corrections, as needed. Any
necessary budget revisions were made. (both must be true)
2: There was at least one review of the work plan per year with a view to assessing if project activities were
on track to achieving the desired development results (i.e., outputs.) There may or may not be evidence that
data or lessons learned were used to inform the review(s). Any necessary budget revisions have been
made.
1: While the project team may have reviewed the work plan at least once over the past year to ensure outputs
were delivered on time, no link was made to the delivery of desired development results. Select this option
also if no review of the work plan by management took place.
Evidence:
El proyecto se revisaba periodicamente y tomaba e
n cuenta las lecciones aprendidas, las cuales se co
mpartian con la contrapartes para tener su retroali
mentación.
18 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
17. Were the targeted groups systematically identified and engaged, prioritizing the marginalized and excluded, to
ensure results were achieved as expected?
3: The project targeted specific groups and/or geographic areas, identified by using credible data sources on
their capacity needs, deprivation and/or exclusion from development opportunities relevant to the project’s
area of work. There is clear evidence that the targeted groups were reached as intended. The project
engaged regularly with targeted groups over the past year to assess whether they benefited as expected and
adjustments were made if necessary, to refine targeting. (all must be true)
2: The project targeted specific groups and/or geographic areas, based on some evidence of their capacity
needs, deprivation and/or exclusion from development opportunities relevant to the project’s area of work.
Some evidence is provided to confirm that project beneficiaries are members of the targeted groups. There
was some engagement with beneficiaries in the past year to assess whether they were benefiting as
expected. (all must be true)
1: The project did not report on specific targeted groups. There is no evidence to confirm that project
beneficiaries are populations have capacity needs or are deprived and/or excluded from development
opportunities relevant to the project area of work. There is some engagement with beneficiaries to assess
whether they benefited as expected, but it was limited or did not occurred in the past year.
Not Applicable
Evidence:
El proyecto focalizó su implementación en determin
ados grupos y areas geograficas. Dado que su prin
cipal objetivo era enfrentar a traves de politicas pub
icas consensuadas los principales desafios del pai
s, seguridad, educación y calidad, sus efectos tenia
n alcance nacional.
El proyecto generó instrumentos que pretendian fac
ilitar la focalización de las intervenciones (ver anex
o).
19 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 20 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
19. Were there regular monitoring of changes in capacities and performance of institutions and systems relevant to
the project, as needed, and were the implementation arrangements8 adjusted according to changes in partner
capacities?
3: Changes in capacities and performance of national institutions and systems were assessed/monitored
using clear indicators, rigorous methods of data collection and credible data sources including relevant HACT
assurance activities. Implementation arrangements were formally reviewed and adjusted, if needed, in
agreement with partners according to changes in partner capacities. (all must be true)
2: Aspects of changes in capacities and performance of relevant national institutions and systems were
monitored by the project using indicators and reasonably credible data sources including relevant HACT
assurance activities. Some adjustment was made to implementation arrangements if needed to reflect
changes in partner capacities. (all must be true)
1: Some aspects of changes in capacities and performance of relevant national institutions and systems
may have been monitored by the project, however changes to implementation arrangements have not been
considered. Also select this option if changes in capacities and performance of relevant national institutions
and systems have not been monitored by the project.
Not Applicable
21 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798
Evidence: Management Response:
Durante el primer trimestre de 2019 se sostuvo reui Reuniones con altas autoridades de la nueva gestió
nones con la contraparte nacional para preparar la t n gubernamental fueron sostenidas, incluyendo acer
ransicion del proyecto a una nueva gestion de gobie camiento con cancilleria pra preparar transicion del
rno ( 2019-2024). proyecto.
Se preparó la sintesis de la experiencia para facilita
r la transicion. Asimismo, se sostuvieron reuniones
con los nuevos funcionarios para dar a conocer los
hallazgos de la evaluación del proyecto y definir una
nueva hoja de ruta, que se acercara a sus prioridad
es.
20. Were the transition and phase-out arrangements were reviewed and adjusted according to progress (including
financial commitment and capacity).
22 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 23 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
Closure Print https://intranet-apps.undp.org/ProjectQA/Forms/ClosurePrint?fid=2798 24 de 24 09/03/2021 02:47 p. m.
You can also read
